Neither I, or the Daniel Pipes extract, has ANY implication - obvious or intrinisic - of using the word TERRORIST as a code-word for 'Muslim'. And yet you, and the rest of this thread, seem to have gone down that alley.
What the hell do I care whether they're Muslim, Irish, Australian (yeah I don't give a stuff about David Hicks), or whatever? Why did you and others jump on my point and turn it 90 degrees clockwise?
The only point is this: are people who murder for political reasons, 'militants' (or choose your favorite euphemism) - or are they terrorists? Who mentioned ethnicity. Maybe other people do - but not me .. and this is my thread and MY point.
Daniel
Current Events » in reply to Sort-of like calling all participants in organized crime "Italians".
You have gone right off-track with this misinterpretation
The whole thread (45 posts)
- Russia ready to strike against terror
- I re-state my prediction of a blood bath in Chechnya. Russia is not famous for mercy or moderation. (n/t)
- 50-60 thousand troops to Iraq would be a good start. (n/t)
- Agreed.
- It's called "anarchy".
- Hope they don't look too closely at northern Idaho... (n/t)
- they're still described as 'militants' by the press
- Words do matter.
- The Euphemism Collection
- re: You don't need to refer to them as Muslims. Its a given. Almost every terrorist is Muslim. Its a modern day fact. (n/t)
- Sort-of like calling all participants in organized crime "Italians".
- Nor males, nor deeply pigmented humans, nor Arabic-speakers...
- re: Good.
